TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
TRAE wrote: How many times have science conflicted with Science? science has made some notable achievements- 75% of it has not helped mankind but demoralise a community, extract the animalistic behaviour from our character leaving shells that are dominated by electronics. We now have shorter life spans, health care that weakens one part of us to heal another part of us, sent relationships spiraling downward.
MG Man wrote:I still want to know where he get his figures from...75% of science has NOT helped mankind???????
Shorter life spans??????? Unless he comparing us to Moses and crew, whatthefuck man???? Seriously?
The gap in life expectancy between the sexes was 5 years in 1990 and had remained the same by 2012. The gap is much larger in high-income countries (more than six years) than in low-income countries (around three years).
what are you trying to say exactly?TRAE wrote:
MG Man- to better engage in big people thing- dont belittle yuhself to a gaza rat please nuh homie
Back to the general public-
WHO says:The gap in life expectancy between the sexes was 5 years in 1990 and had remained the same by 2012. The gap is much larger in high-income countries (more than six years) than in low-income countries (around three years).
http://www.who.int/gho/mortality_burden ... s_text/en/
Certainly medical science changed alot since the 90s yes? This equats life expentancy to the wealth of a location or class
should we have at least gained years of life and the vitality of teens lol...
Guys seriously you think inside the box, I am sure that if I put forward an idea that schooling is a waste of resources only put in place to ensure a steady workforce then you would now say i speak blasphemy. religion against religion is not blasphemy - that was ruled out in the medieval times- now religions can "Build" comparing and contrasting beliefs. only religion that creates images of violence is islam- which in itself is failure as most of the middle east is islam based yet its always war in the middle east. Religion is a failure- it stems to elevate the simplicity of living to a monetary standard. spirituality is on the other hand is everything that is good with seasoning. Evolution is an option, whether it can be proven 100% is not the question- what is the question is what to do after? we already have a goal with spiritualism, whats your goal with evolution?
And oh god fellas seriously you would throw simple morals out the window for a world ruled by money? i sincerely hope all of you are well off so you never have to come down to the standards of the poor--- cause they live for a goal, remember that
TRAE wrote:Certainly medical science changed alot since the 90s yes? This equats life expentancy to the wealth of a location or class
should we have at least gained years of life and the vitality of teens lol...
Guys seriously you think inside the box, I am sure that if I put forward an idea that schooling is a waste of resources only put in place to ensure a steady workforce then you would now say i speak blasphemy. religion against religion is not blasphemy - that was ruled out in the medieval times- now religions can "Build" comparing and contrasting beliefs. only religion that creates images of violence is islam- which in itself is failure as most of the middle east is islam based yet its always war in the middle east. Religion is a failure- it stems to elevate the simplicity of living to a monetary standard. spirituality is on the other hand is everything that is good with seasoning. Evolution is an option, whether it can be proven 100% is not the question- what is the question is what to do after? we already have a goal with spiritualism, whats your goal with evolution?
And oh god fellas seriously you would throw simple morals out the window for a world ruled by money? i sincerely hope all of you are well off so you never have to come down to the standards of the poor--- cause they live for a goal, remember that
TRAE wrote:MG MAN MUAHAHAHHAA
gonna post on your page
Slartibartfast wrote:TRAE wrote:Certainly medical science changed alot since the 90s yes? This equats life expentancy to the wealth of a location or class
should we have at least gained years of life and the vitality of teens lol...
Guys seriously you think inside the box, I am sure that if I put forward an idea that schooling is a waste of resources only put in place to ensure a steady workforce then you would now say i speak blasphemy. religion against religion is not blasphemy - that was ruled out in the medieval times- now religions can "Build" comparing and contrasting beliefs. only religion that creates images of violence is islam- which in itself is failure as most of the middle east is islam based yet its always war in the middle east. Religion is a failure- it stems to elevate the simplicity of living to a monetary standard. spirituality is on the other hand is everything that is good with seasoning. Evolution is an option, whether it can be proven 100% is not the question- what is the question is what to do after? we already have a goal with spiritualism, whats your goal with evolution?
And oh god fellas seriously you would throw simple morals out the window for a world ruled by money? i sincerely hope all of you are well off so you never have to come down to the standards of the poor--- cause they live for a goal, remember that
Scene. Btw, you have to take into account a lot of factors that shorten life expectancy, like a shift in diet to more processed foods and impurities in water supplies. Yes, these can be traced back to developments in science but the negative impacts lie with people. Science is unbiased. Theists and atheists alike can use it for good and bad. Now moving on.
The thing with education, you have a point. In fact, I believe I read that education became mandatory around the time of the industrial revolution, hence such a weak focus is placed on the arts. Maybe someone should start an education thread there is a lot to talk about on that. Don't know how true this is so don't quote me on it.
I agree with religion being a failure so there is no argument there. About spirituality, I have realised all the information on it is opinionated. Even this is just my opinion man. With that said, I find a lot of teachings of Zen and Buddhism offer a nice perspective on living life. It's teachings of empathy seem spot on (even with no mention of spirituality, consciousness, religion or God)
MG Man wrote:TRAE wrote:MG MAN MUAHAHAHHAA
gonna post on your page
I have a page?
TRAE wrote:AHHHHH i like your brain, it works! good go my homie
answer my question too plsTRAE wrote:AHHHHH
http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-lawIs Gravity a Theory or a Law?
This week's experiment comes from a recent question, wanting to know whether gravity is a law or a theory. That question brings up so many more questions that I thought it would be fun to explore. To try this, you will need:
- an object to drop.
OK, pick an object that will not break, dent the floor, cause a mess, or get either of us in trouble. Hold it out in front of you and release it. What happens? It falls, of course. The gravitational attraction between the Earth and the object pulls it towards the ground. But, when we do this experiment, should we be talking about the Law of Gravity or the Theory of Gravity?
Actually, we should be talking about both. To understand why, we need to understand the scientific meaning of the words "law" and "theory."
In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.
We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.
While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.
A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.
While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.
So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other.
"A scientific theory is an explanation which is backed by "a considerable body of evidence," while a law is a set of regularities expressed in a "mathematical statement." This is why Newton's Laws of Motion are referred to as laws and not theories. They are expressed with simple equations (like f = ma for his 2nd Law of Motion).Habit7 wrote:There is the law of gravity and the theories of gravity. Theories of gravity explain why gravity may attract. The law of gravity (like the one influencing your fall out of a building) explains how you are attracted to the earth.
Habit7 wrote:What brand popcorn did you eat while observing the evolution of dinosaurs to birds?
P.S. Evolution is also theorized to be very rapid (punctuated equilibrium).
